Did she Thank she could make the allegations and not back it up ? Well maybe she did being she is a Democrats
Yep. Whether or not you believe her, she's opened herself up to death threats, character attacks, and no privacy. She's had to leave her home. She's put herself out there. If she's going to go before the Committee, they have no right to hide behind a lawyer to protect them from political blowback. It just opens them up to engage in nastiness without consequences.
Maybe she can send her lawyer to speak on her behalf. It only seems fair if the Republican Senators can't speak for themselves. Funny how you can't justify that. You keep deflecting.
Democrats only have themselves to blame by hiding the letter for two months and then springing it at the last minute to stop the nomination
I would thank the Democrats would like a fair and impartial third party to handle it. After all that is what the FBI is suppose to be. Of course by having a female handle it takes away the Democrats bitch. Seems you just got out foxed
The Republicans didn't offer a fair and impartial third party. They offered female attorneys to do the questioning FOR THE SENATORS. It's simply a way for them to avoid political blowback when they attack her. It's cowardly. Like I said, you can't defend or justify it. Seems your party is afraid.
And has given cover for false accusations and shakedowns, where pointing out the holes in their story automatically results in an accusation of victim shaming. If Kavanaugh was not a Supreme Court nominee, would anyone give a crap? Would there be any pushback against her allegations? He would be like any regular guy in the Me Too environment that would be automatically considered guilty. In all other cases against public figures, it is the steady stream of victims that turns public opinion against them, not a single accusation. Bill Cosby was considered innocent at first, but once a steady stream of victims emerged telling the same story, his credibility became shot. Same thing with Weinstein and Louie C.K. Public figures get the benefit of the doubt in our society. Unless it involves politics, and then all civility goes out the window. Kind of off topic, but when Linda Tripp initially alleged that Bill got busy with his intern, pretty much every Democrat said she was lying and a partisan hack. It wasn’t until the blue dress was produced that definitively proved her allegations, that Democrats had to admit that yes Clinton did it, but what was the big deal. Right now there are allegations, but no blue dress that can be pointed to as a smoking gun indicating Kavanugh’s guilt. Others at the party say nothing happened, and there is no history of similar behavior by Kavanaugh. The people backing up Ford’s story all say they first they heard of it after 2012, when it came out in her therapy session 25 years after the fact. And the therapist’s version differs from her version. So what we have is an accusation of an event happening 25 years ago, where the “corroborating” witnesses are all repeating what was told them by the alleged victim 25+ years after the fact. So if I listened to an interview by someone molested by Weinstein, could I also be called as a coroborating witness that Weinstein had molested her?
Because that is exactly what Senate and House Democrats want to be able to generate material to run attack ads before the midterms. They want video of a bunch of white, old men questioning a woman about surviving a sexual assault. If the most important thing everyone is concerned about is about getting the truth, why does it matter who asks the questions? IMO this demand weakens Dr. Ford’s case that this has nothing to do with politics. It comes off as extremely political. Wanting more time to travel, I can understand and possibly accommodate. Putting conditions on who is allowed to ask questions, not so much.
Exactly what is the point of the husband’s testimony? That she told him in 2012 that Kavanaugh molested her 25 years ago? Which has what relevance to her accusations? He wasn’t present at the event, so what does his testimony add to the situation. Same thing with the friend she told. Unless that friend was present at the party, what relevance does her testimony have? It may prove she believes something happened to her, but doesn’t prove squat about whether the event she remembers happened the way she says it happened, with the people involved she believes was involved. So why the hell does anyone think that the testimony of the husband or friend is a smoking gun.
IMO, the refusal to do it weakens any credibility the Republicans have. If they don't want attack ads, they need to be respectful. The fact that they want a female attorney to ask their questions shows that they have no interest in handling this matter respectfully or behaving themselves. If that's how they want to proceed, they need to take the political blowback. She's already dealing with the blowback. They need to step up or shut up. Dr. Blasey wants to be treated with respect and decency. The best way to ensure that is to force the people asking the questions to be accountable. Oh and if this were about getting to the truth, Kavanaugh and the Republicans would actually want an investigation and bring in additional witnesses. This has never been about getting to the truth. It's political theater.
O-F W-H-A-T??? That she believes something happened? That much is obvious since she is publicly accusing him. What does their testimony P-R-O-V-E about her allegation against Kavanugh?? NOTHING!!!!! Their testimony is that 25+ years after the fact, she believes Kavanaugh molested her and told them that. That is it. It is still a he said, she said, with Kavanugh having actual corroborating witnesses that WERE THERE at the event saying that what she said happened didn’t happen. So what does their testimony add to the picture that is relevant? She didn’t confide in them in the 1980’s that Kavanugh molested her (i.e. a few years after the event happened), but she confided in them after she had some memories dredged up during couples therapy in 2012 that made her believe that Kavanaugh molested her (i.e. 25+ years after the fact). All their testimony proves is that she believes that Kavanaugh molested her. And like I have said before, alien abductees believe they were anally probed by little gray men. If they tell their spouse they were anally probed by little gray men, does that automatically make their story more believable?
If she sincerely believed it happened six years ago, you're going to have to invent some creative theories to explain why Kavanaugh is innocent.
Three sides to every story. Imperfect memories. I believe this is a serious event for her, and she most likely believes what she is saying (and perhaps has a lie detector test to prove that point). But that doesn't make it the truth. Let's see what comes of the hearing.
Again, if she believed it was Kavanaugh in 2012, this isn't a political ploy. So you'd need to be able to explain why Kavanaugh if he's not the guy. The mistaken identity theory doesn't stand up well because she knew him from around that time. It's not like a victim identifying a stranger. In that scenario, mistaken identity sometimes happens. But mistakenly identifying a person you knew prior to the assault? That's hard to see happening.
His "witnesses" don't say it did not happen. They say they have no knowledge of it. Huge difference. He is the only one who says it didn't happen. AFAIK. I hope the little gray men don't come for you. I don't picture you doing show tunes.
